This post will look at the article “The Politics of Liberation and Love in Privileged Classrooms” by Susannah Livingston. In short, this article addresses bringing critical pedagogy into classrooms of children from privileged homes enrolled in elite private schools. The author’s primary thesis is that critical pedagogy must be brought into every educational space including the space of the rich and well-to-do.
The thesis makes a strong assumption in that it is implied here that there can be no dissent from critical pedagogy since the author claims that every classroom must have critical pedagogy. This makes one wonder what will happen if people disagree.
After making such a sweeping statement of the use and value of critical pedagogy. The author provides two main questions that they want to address in this paper.
- Is it ethical to bring in a framework designed for the downtrodden into a place of privilege?
- Will praxis take place in this setting?
It might be difficult to understand question 2 at this moment. Essentially, the author is wondering if rich kids will use their privilege to help the oppressed.
Freeing the Bourgeoisie
According to the author, critical pedagogy for privileged kids is about connecting them with the unfortunate and downtrodden. Friere expresses the idea that to be truly human is to be politically conscious, which is to say that a person is fully human when they are aware of the injustice and oppression in the world. Therefore, for the paper’s author, who is also a teacher in an elite private school, awakening privileged kids and making them aware of the social injustice of the world is critical in making these kids fully human.
The point made above helps one to understand why proponents of critical pedagogy are so adamant about what they are doing. They are truly convinced that they are enlightening the world with their crusade of fighting for the oppressed and downtrodden while also opening the eyes of students in particular to the injustice of the world. Doing this is not only doing a good deed but supposedly making people fully human again as if this was lost at one time. According to the author, if critical pedagogy is not in the classroom then the children are alienated from who they are which is a person who needs to be politically conscious.
The author also speaks on the important role of praxis. Praxis is the implementation of critical pedagogy, which means helping the downtrodden not only by providing support but also by organizing and awakening them as well. Praxis is critical in the author’s eyes because stopping the cycle of reproducing dehumanized students (not politically conscious) is necessary. The author believes that there is a strong need to de-normalize private education. Norms or the status quo is always a target of any critical study as it is the norms that guide and reproduce the current society. Queer studies in particular is a direct assault on any form of norms at all and this is not limited to sexuality.
The article goes on to share the struggle between fascist governments and critical pedagogy. Fascist governments are always looking to limit critical pedagogy. This implies that anything or anybody who disagrees with critical pedagogy is fascist and totalitarian. Of course, this also implies that letting critical pedagogy do whatever it wants is not totalitarian to people who disagree. In short, freedom is defined exclusively within a framework of critical pedagogy, which sounds totalitarian when freedom can only be defined a certain way.
Within this worldview, teachers are undercover agents who are looking to free students from the dehumanizing unjust system that they are subject to. Again, this is surprising that teachers, who mostly are government employees, are actively supposed to be trying to bring revolution to the government they are employed for. Even if parents and the local community may be at odds with this subversive motivation of educators.
The author goes on to share that repression must be resisted by teachers who must have and use tools to fight the status quo or what is considered normal. The idea of repression comes from Marcuse in which he states that the left should be tolerated while the right should be repressed. In other words, there are no right-winged leanings among teachers that are tolerable as all teachers should be fighting for revolution.
The implementation of Friere’s ideas is supposed to lead to a non-stratified society. A society that has no stratification implies there is no social mobility. If such a society is possible, it would be a society in which there are almost no differences and nothing to essentially strive for long-term. How people, especially highly motivated ambitious people, could be satisfied in such a system, is not explained. As people have varying degrees of talent and ability it seems unlikely that equality is possible since the driven and talented rise to the top in many instances.
Another premise that the author makes is about the focus on the group over the individual. The author is convinced that the individual should be below or submissive to the group. The problem with this is whether it applies in all situations at all times. There are examples of the group oppressing the individual. In addition, generally, it is easier for a group of people to take away the rights of others over a small handful taking away the rights of the majority. Even in places where a small cadre of people control the country they rely on a network of others who cooperate with them to maintain the status quo as seen in North Korea and China, two countries that support many of the ideas of the author at one time or another in their past. Supposedly, critical pedagogy is about connections between people within the framework of power and place, however, this seems to apply only when people agree with the proponents of critical pedagogy.
Student Reactions
Livingston also explains the reaction of privileged students to exposure to social justice matters through critical pedagogy. Some of the students would attempt to frame the injustice as abstract or they showed a lack of awareness in the manner. This reaction is an example of epistemic pushback in which a person tries to disarm an argument by feigning ignorance to avoid engaging in an uncomfortable discussion.
Other ways in which students react include showing guilt and anger when they hear about the suffering of the marginalized. Whether this is genuine or not is not shared. The last way students deal with the learning of injustice is to develop a savior complex in which they want to rescue the downtrodden. Such an approach is not unique to children and has been demonstrated by others as well.
Despite these reactions that the author documents in her paper. The author goes on to claim that bringing critical pedagogy into the classroom is relieving for many students. This may be true, however, the author never gives numbers on how many students were upset or relieved from this experience so there is no way to determine the success or failure of incorporating this approach into the classroom.
Curricular Views
The author clearly explains that the curriculum needs to be modified to incorporate social justice into it. However, there is no discussion on what to remove to achieve this. Should students have less PE? Perhaps science should be removed? In practice, critical pedagogy is more of a worldview than a new academic subject. In other words, the existing curriculum should be taught from a perspective of the power dynamics of the privileged and the oppressed, which are concepts of major concern within critical pedagogy.
Another tool of education that needs to be addressed is reasoning. The author states that reasoning is a form of oppression as it is focused on competition and deemphasizes collectivism. She states this even though she used reasoning to attack reasoning. The main concern with this comment is that there is no evidence presented of the dangers of reasoning nor are there any discussions of the potential consequences of removing reasoning from the learning experiences of students. One can imagine a world of functioning adults who think that reasoning is bad and oppressive and have decided to make decisions using other techniques. Perhaps it is reasonable to have a segment of the population who do not reason as it would be rather easy to control and manipulate them. However, to have the majority of students undergo such an educational experience that denigrates reasoning might be destabilizing at a minimum to society and leave a population of people who cannot think for themselves at all and rely on impulsive decision-making.
Conclusion
Critical pedagogy is another approach to providing education to students whether rich or poor. The main concern with the author’s perspective is the demand for this approach to be in every school as if it would work everywhere. People are all different and no single approach will work in every context. Another concern could be with the idea that people who are not awakened through critical pedagogy are not fully human. This could lead to an elitist perspective of those who have embraced critical pedagogy and its calls for social justice versus those who question the merit of this perspective.